Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

sidesh0w was one of a number of readers to alert us to the FCC's unanimous decision approving unlicensed devices to use the white spaces of the spectrum unused by television broadcasters, provided they take certain precautions not to interfere with licensed users. "Denying a tremendous last-minute lobbying effort by broadcasters, the vote on white space devices went ahead as planned today after a several-hour delay at FCC headquarters. When the vote came, though, it was unanimous. For the Democrats on the Commission, the devices are appealing because they offer a potential new avenue for broadband services, while the Republicans are pleased for the same reasons, but love the fact that this is a deregulatory order that focuses on less regulation and more competition."

Did somebody just describe God's Own Crony Capitalists(tm) as loving competition?

Please don't confuse the Neocon faction currently in control of the Republican party electoral machinery (and most of the (R) seats in the congress) with conservatives. B-)

Republicans in appointed and bureaucratic positions are more likely to be from the other factions - some of which give more than lip service to economic freedom (which emphatically includes competition and excludes government action selectively helping favorites).

I don't. Unfortunately, judging from the fact that the Neocon faction is currently in control of the electoral machinery and most of the party's seats, a bloody lot of alleged conservatives apparently do.

An interesting idea I saw posted a couple days ago regarding the Neocons machine and this election:

I keep getting a mental image of McCain on election night, looking broken, then walking off stage, shutting himself alone in a room, and out comes an enormous creepy grin. He immediately picks up a phone, dials a number, and says, "Hello, Karl? Yeah, how do you like your permanent majority now? Payback's a biatch, fat boy," then hangs up.

Ummm... Actually if everything was deregulated, monopolies would not form and we would have thriving capitalism. Unfortunately the Republicans won't abolish the hindrances such as patents, absurd copyright, etc. which leads to monopolies.

Ummm... Actually if everything was deregulated, monopolies would not form and we would have thriving capitalism.

Yes. Please do explain to us the market forces that lead to a reigning monopoly that has already extended its reach across several industries ceding power to the up and coming soon-to-be competitors that it could otherwise crush without any trouble at all by using the tried and true anti-competitive tactics that we've all become far too familiar with. And explain why it would be in the best int

Here's your clue for the night: "everything deregulated" would mean no copyrights. Copyrights are a form of regulation. So how does Microsoft maintain their monopoly?

'Everything' is an expensive term to use, needless to say.

By buying out it's competitors, forcing all the other players on the field to only do business with them. Forcing TV stations not to run ads for their competitors etc...
They have the means. They have the money. It's the regulation that's keeping them from doing that (mostly).

The way I see it, the most perfect free market that ever has or ever can exist is that embodied in the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing happens in the physical universe that doesn't involve an exchange of energy. There is no regulation. There are no free lunches. Everyone pays the going rate. And yet, the physical universe brings forth singularities.

And if, in the one system we know that is fundamentally beyond regulation, a single

Yes but even they (black holes) eventually succumb to Thermodynamics and die-out. They gradually lose their energy and dissipate, and the universe becomes a vast nothing with no objects left except random electrons scattered throughout, and a universal average temperature of about -272 Celsius (heat death).

Yes but even they (black holes) eventually succumb to Thermodynamics and die-out

True enough. And similarly, I suppose, once formed, a monopoly must eventually fail and fall apart by itself.
The trouble is that it's still not a good idea to allow them to form. They do tremendous damage to the economy
while they exist, and we don't have any real grounds for speculating about how long it would take them to break
up. We don't know what the economic equivalent of Hawking radiation is. And we really don't wa

But as I pointed-out elsewhere, a monopoly can not last forever because new innovators arrive on the scene. They either (a) offer new alternatives or (b) undercut the monopoly's prices. Case in point: Sony & Philips had a monopoly on music distribution in the form of CDs and Compact Cassettes.

Along came cheaper MP3 downloads and now the Sony/Philips music distribution monopoly no longer exists.

But as I pointed-out elsewhere, a monopoly can not last forever because new innovators arrive on the scene.

Hmmm... you're just re-stating your point rather than adding support for it. Yes, monopolies
will probably die naturally given a long enough time scale. I understand and accept that.
My points in reply to this are:

While we're waiting for this to happen, monopolies can be tremendously damaging to the economy.

We have no way to predict how long we need to wait for the monopoly to die naturally.
It

At least with a private monopoly, you have the choice to "opt out". Comcast has a monopoly in my area, but its rates are outrageously high, so I simply decided to opt-out of giving them my money. I'd like to see you try to do the same with a Government Monopoly (for example: Medicare).

A government monopoly is even worse than a private monopoly. I'd rather have the later, than the former, especially since the latter has the possibility of new companies being born to break-up the monopoly. (Like Dish or D

At least with a private monopoly, you have the choice to "opt out". Comcast has a monopoly in my area, but its rates are outrageously high, so I simply decided to opt-out of giving them my money. I'd like to see you try to do the same with a Government Monopoly (for example: Medicare).

I'm sorry, but that logic is broken in so many ways it's hard to keep track of them all. For one thing, you're presenting a false dichotomy - either we allow private monopolies, or else government ones are inevitable. This i

You do realize that Adam Smith, the founder of capitalist theory says you're wrong, right? Complete deregulation always leads to a one provider monopoly over absolutely all goods and services. There isn't any other possibility, eventually one business gains enough resources to start merging and ultimately wins out over all the other companies.

There's a reason why regulations exist and it is precisely to prevent that sort of scenario from playing out. The Republican party chooses to be ignorant of capitalism

>>>one business gains enough resources to start merging and ultimately wins out over all the other companies.

And then several new guys arrive on the scene, and they undercut the monopoly with lower prices, thereby restoring competition. One obvious example is the downloadable MP3, which killed the 1990s-eras monopoly on music (CDs and cassettes) that Sony and Philips once held.

I'm sure there are many, many other examples out there where a monopoly's back was broken by new innovative or cost-cuttin

"Economies of scale" says otherwise. The larger the company, the lower their costs per-item, and in most cases that is a HUGE price difference.

I don't agree with you, but if we assume you are correct: Where's the harm in having a monopoly? As you point-out, economy of scale makes the product cheaper. Why are you anti-monopoly?

monopoly keeps prices rather high.

You contradict yourself. Which is it? Monopolies keep prices lower, or higher? If it's the former, then that's good for the consumer, and no reason to bust-up the monopoly. ----- If it's the latter, then a new startup company (Theaveng Company) can produce the same item for a lower price and thereby reintroduce com

This isn't hard to understand. A monopoly will have lower costs but higher prices.

If a competitor comes along, the deep pockets and lower costs will allow the monopoly to undercut the startup as long as it takes to drive them out of business and then jack the prices back up. Read some American history or take a look at Mexico's economy.

You contradict yourself. Which is it? Monopolies keep prices lower, or higher? If it's the former, then that's good for the consumer, and no reason to bust-up the monopoly. If it's the latter, then a new startup company can produce the same item for a lower price and thereby reintroduce competition.

It's both. Every business seeks to maximize profits. A monopoly can set high prices and rake in the profits. If a competitor comes along with lower prices, the monopoly can use their scale and their deep pockets

The primary "harm" is that Libertarian theory states that a monopoly can't exist under a system with no regulation. ie. That all monopolies are the direct result of government intervention, either directly establishing them (like the telcos, public utilities, etc.) or erecting barriers in the form of relevant legislation (like product safety laws, labor laws, whatever...) that prevents small competitors from starting up without large amounts of cash. My whole point is

My whole point is that the theory is wrong, and natural economic forces almost always trend toward monopolies, which will continue to gain more and more power.

Ummm... Wrong. Lets take an example: gas.

Company A has a large oil reserve, it takes the oil, refines it, and makes gas.

Company B has a smaller, but still large oil reserve, takes the oil, refines it, and makes gas.

Company C has an even smaller oil reserve that is running out to make gas.

So the most logical solution would be that company A buys out companies B and C giving it a monopoly, however, citizens don't like the high price of gas and make cars that run on something else other than

Well if THIS republican was in power (me), you wouldn't have just one service. There's enough room in underground pipes to run cables from Time-Warner, Comcast, Cox, Verizon, and allow each customer to choose their own company. This competition would ultimately drive-down prices due to positive pressure from angry homeowners. The Dish Company currently provides cable channels for as low as $20 a month. I suspect cable competition would lead to a similar pricing scheme, and which would benefit all citize

The reason you have only one broadband provider, one power company, et c. is because of the regulation in those industries. Deregulation is always a good thing for competition - it allows for startups to change the rules and provide choice to consumers.

That's untrue. The reason is because of physical infrastructure. Having the streets dug up on a weekly basis by competing companies to run 200 gas lines is physically unfeasible especially in built up areas. The grant on monopoly in the case of utilities, and

Yes, but there's no reason why you can't have multiple Cable TV or Internet providers. Wires don't take-up much space, so it should be a simple task to run multiple companies through the same underground pipe:

- Comcast- Cox- Time-Warner- Verizon

Every home should be wired to multiple providers, so that the consumer has multiple choices.

You know the ghost that uses the white space to communicate on the tv and recorders? Won't they get pissed now that thier channels are getting clogged?
Sigh... don't mind me... stupid stupid corny joke... lala

As an Amateur Radio operator, I have looked at several articles including the one linked from/., and the one on NY Times [nytimes.com]. Does anyone have an idea about what frequencies they are speaking of?
Thanks

i'm assuming that wireless protocols used in the white-space spectrum (i think WiMax has an unlicensed spectrum profile, though i don't know what frequency range it's in) will account for potential interference and frequency conflicts from other devices. most-likely these protocols will be designed to detect whether a particular band or frequency is occupied by another device and try to find one that isn't. they'll probably also be designed to jump to a different band/frequency if a new source of interferen

i'm assuming that wireless protocols used in the white-space spectrum (i think WiMax has an unlicensed spectrum profile, though i don't know what frequency range it's in) will account for potential interference and frequency conflicts from other devices.

I would extend the question further: what happens in a competitive environment where:- providers compete among each other to serve as much customers as possible over whitespace ?- customers compete among each other to maximize their own download speed ?

I realize the devices are themselves approved by FCC, but what happens when you can improve the quality of service by hacking the firmware ? How many people will refuse to install the "double your bandwidth" hacked firmware, that just so happens to disable an

>>How many people will refuse to install the "double your bandwidth" hacked firmware, that just so happens to disable any spectrum sensing and pump out bits at the highest power level available, and also disables FCC's ability to patch remotely ?>>>

Thanks. You just ruined my day. If the firmware can be hacked in your whitespace-equipped Ipod, you could also disable the TV-protective database, and broadcast your Ipod signals directly overtop of existing channels (like WGAL in my area).

All the NAB has to do is distribute some sensitive equipment, with training manuals, to a number of people around the country. They train how to detect infringing devices. They follow the steps in the manual to report the infringing devices. A crack legal team at the NAB receives notifications from said people.

I imagine it wouldn't be hard for a lot of cease and desist orders to be issued at a fairly low cost per order, if a well-organized campaign was organized. Said group of trained people proceed to

This is undoubtedly the right technical move. There is a huge amount of underused bandwidth in this part of the spectrum. As long as there is a reliable way to avoid the licensed operators, it would be stupid not to optimize our usage. Not optimizing our bandwidth is one of the reasons why we're slipping in broadband adoption compared to the rest of the world.

>>>There is a huge amount of underused bandwidth in this part of the spectrum.

???

Here in the crowded Northeast region, I have four empty channels. 2,3,4, and 25, and only the UHF-band 25 can be used by these compact whitespace devices. So that's ONE empty channel. I don't call that a "huge amount" in any way, shape, or form.

So what the previous poster actually meant is there is "lots of unused spectrum" if you live in the Midwest. Those of us on the crowded seaboard probably wouldn't see any benefit, since our channels are booked almost completely-solid.

Part 15 devices already create a spectral cesspool. Between devices that are shoddily made, not made to their certifications (ie: the manufacturer certified a 'lab queen' and what they actually build doesn't meet spec), and end users adding illegal power amps and illegal antennas, Part 15 devices are already a huge headache to the licensed users with whom they share spectrum. The SNR on digital TV is already marginal enough. This could very well go badly for all concerned. Part 15 devices need to be seg

Development and deployment of infringing devices that totally pollute the spectra, rendering all the other whitespace devices unusable. It's a 'lets all get along' area of the spectrum. None of the unlicensed devices have to not infringing on other unlicensed devices, do they? Your neighbor is jamming your over-the-air TV reception? Buy a "Widget N" from an NAB-sponsored website. It uses two AA batteries and makes your neighbors whitespace device totally unusable. All for a low

Water adsorption is so high from 100 GHz up to light that it doesn't matter.

Water absorbs light? Odd that.

I'm sure the reason for the lack of regulation is simply because such frequencies are so extremely directional that there's next to no possibility of even neighboring transceivers causing interference.

Just like it was for the real estate, mortgage, and banking industry! Less pesky, intrusive government oversight. I expect big things.

The problem with the finance industry wasn't lack of government oversight, it was ineffective government oversight.

In an unregulated environment, investors would have been more cautious and would have done more due diligence on the nature of the mortgages their securities backed. In a well-regulated environment, regulators would have done the due diligence and made sure that the risks were appropriately communicated to investors. Investors believed regulators had their back, but were wrong, and that scr

I read on Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] that Google, Dell, Intel, and Microsoft submitted a proof-of-concept prototype to the FCC for testing. Now that this (de)regulation has been approved, any thoughts on who will be the first to roll out White Space devices.

Your new phone won't interfere with your TV, as your TV does not use this spectrum. Your new phone will only interfere with other devices currently using this band. It's no different than your 2.4GHz phone interfering with your WiFi today.

The reason this is such a "fun" decision is that a large number of wireless microphones (used by entertainers, churches, actors in theatres, musicians, etc.) have been illegally occupying this spectrum for many years. That's right, they've been squatting spectrum that they should not have been using, and when this announcement came out all these "performers" started whining that they'd have to buy something else.

I think this is the ideal punishment for those lawbreakers: too freakin' bad, you should have been purchasing and licensing COMPLIANT equipment all along, morons! Now you get to pay for it twice! It makes me happy.

Harm? I'm not wishing harm on them nearly as much as I'm cheering the equality that's being forced upon them. If they want interference-free equipment, they'll now have to license it just like everyone else.

I have ALWAYS paid for my FCC licenses because the law says I'm supposed to. They didn't, and never have.

I might have had one ounce of sympathy if they didn't rise up as a group crying when someone else wanted to share their sandbox. But no, they've been using something for free that was not lawfully theirs to use in the first place, and now the FCC has said "it's a public sandbox and everyone else gets to play there too."

>>>they've been using something for free that was not lawfully theirs to use in the first place

True for the wireless microphone users, but not true for the TV broadcasters. There are over 5000 local stations and/or repeaters spread over this continent, and they have all bought-and-paid-for exclusive use of 1 channel per station. I think those local owners have a right to be angry the FCC decided to make their expensive licenses essentially worthless.

Kevin Martin is a Bush-appointed political hack. I thought that Slashdot leaned decidedly against corrupt government acts like this.

Yeah it's a bit odd, but not too surprising. Most people support large government acts if they can personally gain from the act.

In this case, most slashdotters don't care about wireless television; only wireless internet. If the government decides to effectively-end wireless television to make room for wireless internet-capable Ipods, then so be it. The slashdotters will happily fall into line with the Bush administration's heavy-handed government, because even though other people are getting screwed, t

Has your life been negatively impacted by these "illegal" wireless microphones ? No ? Then STFU!

The whole concept of licensing airwaves is loopy to begin with. Who "owns" the airwaves ? Not the US Gov't nor the FCC. I respect the need for some regulation, mainly to ensure operability, but that's roughly where my concern ends.

"Has your life been negatively impacted by these "illegal" wireless microphones ? No ? Then STFU!"

Actually yes, yes it has. Multiple times.

And opening this spectrum doesn't stop the existing non-broadcast users from utilizing it... and for free... it just allows everyone else to do the same thing. Oh, wait, now other devices are going to stomp on those frequencies? Well... bone up... because those microphones have been doing it others for awhile.

And you're sitting there going off about how no one "owns" the airwaves? That sounds like the position of someone in favor of deregulation. Guess what this judgement just did for those frequencies? That's right. Deregulated them.

And opening this spectrum doesn't stop the existing non-broadcast users from utilizing it... and for free... it just allows everyone else to do the same thing. Oh, wait, now other devices are going to stomp on those frequencies? Well... bone up... because those microphones have been doing it others for awhile.

Not quite. Wireless mics will continue to use the spectrum illegally, and they will continue to cause whatever interference they were causing.Whitespace devices will do spectrum sensing, they will detect wireless mics (and TV stations, and everybody else) as non-whitespace devices, and will avoid that spectrum.During the licensing effort for WS, a great deal of focus was put on the issue of not causing interference with existing devices, be they licensed or not, and wireless mics were often mentioned.White-

Why yes, my life has indeed been negatively impacted. I've been paying the FCC for licenses to use a tiny portion of the spectrum. And I've been supporting more than my fair share because these scofflaws have not been paying at all.

Without the revenue from the licenses, we would have no regulatory body, and without rules we simply would not have any working RF devices at all. A few giant broadcasters would be pumping megawatts into a handful of megastations, and we'd probably be getting nothing but crappy AM radio leaking interference into every electronic device in existence. Nobody would be responsible for ensuring their signals are of high quality and don't leak. Tiny signals would be drowned out. Cell phones would be impossible, as would any of the GPRS / 3G / EDGE type networking solutions. The fact that the FCC has provided this badly needed regulation says to me that they're an effective body (despite Pacifica and the censorship issues.)

And the licenses pay for it all. My license and my dollars have paid for my small portion of it. Their money has not. It's time for them to pick up the slack since they're reaping the benefit.

the radio spectrum is a limited public resource. it's something that is incredibly useful (and increasingly vital) but has to be shared by everyone. therefore, in order to prevent the tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org], it has to be regulated.

and really, the best way to regulate it is through licensing. though how it is licensed could probably use some improvement. and if you are against licensing airwaves, then why are you complaining about the FCC's approval of the unlicensed use of the white-space spectrum?

the people who bitch about how this will affect their TV reception or wireless microphones are basically claiming this entire unlicensed block for themselves and are trying to prevent the development of wireless technologies that are much more broadly useful to the general public. why should they alone be allowed to benefit from this shared public resource? why should their private interests be placed above public interest?

wireless microphones and wireless broadband are not mutually exclusive. but that requires that people be considerate when developing their wireless technologies and implementing wireless applications in the white-space spectrum. i mean, when you use an unlicensed spectrum you should naturally expect to have other devices residing on the same frequencies. that's why it's an unlicensed spectrum.

Here in Australia we have a UHF CB radio band (as well as the American 27meg AM). This band is unregulated, there are a few rules such as 5watts being the maximum allowed output but apart from that it is entirly self regulating.

Being in the UHF band means there are ALLOT of handhelds in operation, in the city allot of nightclubs use the CB band for their staff communications and most of the time their is no problem because most people are willing to share the band.

Thing is, you're assuming that it is a limited public resource, but the evidence is actually that if the nodes are carefully designed to minimise the amount of radio power emitted then adding more nodes actually doesn't change the bandwidth that's available to each of the users.

Laws licensing airwaves are important. If they didn't exist, no one within 100' of me would ever be able to use a cell phone, because I would have a jammer.

This would make me happier since I wouldn't have to deal with people talking on cell phones in restaurants, or in theaters, and I wouldn't have to listen to obnoxious ringtones, but ultimately, I have to admit that preventing me from jamming cell phones is in society's best interest

Musician's and production company's have not been ABLE to buy the correct licensing to run the microphones in the first place!

In order to get the permit you have to be a licensed broadcaster or broadcast media creator. Then you can get a permit.

So in a sense the musician's and company's that use these pieces of equipment aren't even able to get the correct licensing by law because of the law.

And as for buying something else. Please tell me where I may buy a Sennheiser EW300G2 IEM system that is in a correct frequency band?? Thats right, they don't make any!

So lets see if I have all your arguments here.

Q. They don't have the licensingA. They can't get the licensing because of the FCC laws.

Q. Why don't they buy something else?A. Because their is nothing else.

Please remember next year when your city wants to budget more money for replacing their wireless equipment that they have in any civic center/event center/broadcast center they have, to think back to your answers here.

My quest that I would like to ask is. What becomes of the people that actually were able to get licensing for their units? Is it now tough luck, thanks for playing?

The ones truly getting the shaft in all this are the TV broadcasters. It was always their band, so companies like Sennheiser made the gear for them to use in their own space. Nothing wrong with that. But everyone else went and bought that gear without the right to operate it, and now they feel entitled. And it's not currently made in other frequencies because Sennheiser built it only for their primary customers -- the already licensed users of the spectrum.

They've manufactured perfectly legal equipment for a licensed band, and a bunch of unlicensed users bought it and used it. That hardly makes it legal. So the non-legal users can start licensing some of the commercial UHF frequencies, just like everybody else who needs the exclusive use of RF for some business purpose. And it's going to cost them, and people are going to whine, and all because they suddenly have to pay their fair share. Don't worry if the gear's not there today, because if there's a dollar to be made selling it someone will start making it tomorrow.

Churches and cities can keep using their old, now-legal gear, and now it's official. But they're taking chances with shared spectrum just like anyone else. My city probably won't have the budget for replacement microphones and licensed spectrum, but that doesn't mean their current gear stops working: they just have to hope that some guy with a Fisher-Price baby monitor or a laptop won't start abusing it. But professional entertainers such as singers and NFL commentators will most likely step up and license a frequency because they can't afford to take the chance of some drunk interrupting a live performance with a baby monitor.